IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, when view taken by trial court could not be termed to be perverse, mere possibility of different view that could be taken, could not be a ground to interfere with order of acquittal of trial court.

ORDER

The respondent was married to Sneh Lata on 25th March, 1986. A child, namely, Vishwas (PW-2) was born to the parties in the year 1988. Sneh Lata died on 22nd December, 1993 in her house. It is alleged that poison was administered to her by the respondent - her husband in the presence of Vishwas, PW-2. The first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased on the same day at 11.30 p.m. in the night. The respondent was charged for the commission of the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused. Leave to file acquittal appeal was denied by the High Court vide the order impugned in this appeal by special leave.

2. Relying upon the statement of PW-2, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-state has urged that the trial court was not justified in acquitting the respondent because PW-2 had categorically stated that poison was administered to his mother - Sneh Lata by his father-respondent. It is further submitted that as there is no infirmity in the statement of PW-2, the same could be made the basis for conviction of the respondent.

3. The trial court has taken note of undisputed facts and thereafter referred to the statement of PW-2 wherein the facts of the occurrence have been narrated by the said witness. After noticing certain inherent defects and keeping in mind the statement of DW-1 Renu, who was admittedly present at the time when occurrence took place and apparently being influenced by the fact that Prem Chand Soni, another person who is stated to have come on the spot immediately after occurrence, had not been examined as witness by the prosecution, the trial court concluded that it was difficult to rely upon the testimony of the child witness for the purpose of convicting the respondent. On appreciation of facts and keeping in mind the narrations of PW-2, the trial court concluded that he was a tutored witness.

4. While rejecting the prayer for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal, the High Court is also shown to have perused the record besides the judgment of the trial court and opined that "it is not a fit case in which the state may be permitted to file an appeal. The trial court has considered the evidence in right perspective and appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and improper."

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-state has taken us through the statement of PW-2 and DW-2. We also feel that the view taken by the trial court cannot be termed to be perverse or uncalled for. The mere possibility of our taking different view cannot be a ground for interfering with the order of acquittal of the trial court. This Court has held in Kalyan & Ors. v. State of U.P. [JT 2001(8) SC 200]:

8. "The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witness and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1973 SC 2773] this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be ad